Mon Mar 25 01:54:28 1996

From majordom  Mon Mar 25 01:54:28 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA19316; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 01:54:28 +0500
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 01:54:23 -0500 (EST)
From: "James R. Adair" 
X-Sender: jadair@scholar
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: James 2:18
In-Reply-To: 
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 3198
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

On Sat, 23 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Mar 1996, Ulrich Schmid wrote:
> 
> > I just came across two readings in Luke 12,58 which may well meet the
> > criteria required. The construction runs as follows: MHPOTE KATASURH...KAI
> > PARADWSEI... KAI BALEI. The unusual thing about this is the future tense
> > (PARADWSEI, BALEI) after MHPOTE. 
> 
> Although unusual, the future tense after MHPOTE is not unique to the
> critical text, but is also found in the Byzantine Textform in Mk.14:2
> (MHPOTE QORUBOS ESTAI) and Heb.3:12 (MHPOTE ESTAI).  By the analogy given,
> the Byzantine scribes should have been as swift to "correct" those
> instances as well as in Lk.12:58.  Since they did not, the question is
> whether the Alexandrian scribes may have had reason to alter the clause to
> the future tense and to depart from the subjunctive. 
> 
> ...
> The use of the fut.indic. in Lk.12:58 appears thus to be a late variant 
> created within the Alexandrian texttype, and an alteration reflecting 
> common vernacular rather than normal literary style.  I therefore am not 
> particularly surprised to find the non-Byzantine reading shifting to the 
> future indicative here.  Rather than a mark of "originality" this use 
> clearly seems to indicate something of a secondary nature; the later 
> scribes did not have to "discover" grammar -- these principles were 
> already part of their stock in trade. 
> 
> ... 
> To sum up from my viewpoint: The aorist subjunctives (PARADW, BALH) in Luke 
> 12,58 are clearly the original readings, and the future indicatives 
> (PARADWSEI, BALEI) are merely grammatical shifts to the common vernacular 
> which were likely occasioned by a transposition and scribal confusion 
> plus required grammatical correction following that confusion.

I think text critics of all stripes should be wary of too much certainty 
in cases such as this.  The different readings could be no more than 
itacism.  On the other hand, there may have been gramatically-influenced 
correction one way or the other.  The fact that both the future 
indicative and aorist subjunctive appear in similar contexts in both 
Alexandrian and Byzantine texts, though not always in the same places, 
suggests that the scribes who might have been concerned with "grammatical 
correctness" in some places (I'll resist any analogy with PC here) were 
anything but consistent.  I will offer an OT analogy, however.  The 
tendency toward fuller spelling (plene readings) is evident in Masoretic 
mss, and especially in certain Qumran mss (e.g., 1QIsa-a, 11QPs-a), but 
plene readings are by no means ubiquitous: defective (shorter) spelling 
abounds throughout the Hebrew Bible, and although the concentration is 
higher in some books than in others, even within books there is very 
little consistency.  The point here is that scribes "correcting" their 
texts, whether for orthographic, grammatical, or theological reasons, 
just weren't very consistent, as a rule.

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

Back